<p>“Does it not, in normal course, be a stigma when a chargesheet is filed against an officer? Is the criterion of impeccable integrity applied when there is a stigma of chargesheet?” a Bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia asked in the context of Attorney General G E Vahanvati’s submission.<br /><br />Larger issue<br /><br />Raising the larger issue of malfeasance on the part of P J Thomas, whose appointment as CVC last year and the government’s explanations have not inspired confidence of the court, the Bench questioned the clearance given to him by his predecessor in 2007-08 when his name came up for appointment as secretary to the Union government and subsequent empanelment for the post of CVC. During the day-long hearing, the court said it would lay down guidelines for future appointment to the post of CVC, which in Thomas’ case was decided by a three-member high-powered committee. <br /><br />The court’s decision assumes importance in the context of Union Home Minister P Chidambaram’s admission Monday that the chargesheet against Thomas, filed in 1992 for his alleged involvement in a palmolein import case, which caused a loss of about Rs 20 crore when he was Food and Civil Supplies secretary to the Kerala government, was indeed discussed by the selection committee headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. <br />During the hearing, Vahanvati maintained that there need not be “unanimity” among members on the selection committee for the CVC’s appointment. The court asked Vahanvati whether Thomas’ service file, besides his bio-data, was made available to the selection panel.<br /><br />But on the chargesheet against Thomas, the Bench, also comprising Justices K S Panicker Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar, said: “(The) CVC cannot say that the court might have applied its mind (while hearing the case) and neither can the Commission say there is no merit in the case while giving clearance. The CVC cannot be the final authority (in all these matters).”<br /><br />When the court questioned whether impeccable integrity could be applied even there was a pending chargesheet, the attorney general replied by saying “this is a grey area”. When Vahanvati responded that there were no guideliness or rules for appointing a CVC, the court said: “For future appointments, we would lay down guidelines that there should be some procedure”.<br /><br />To drive home its point, the court said future appointments of CVCs must be in accordance with the Vineet Narain case judgement which makes it clear that the chief of the country’s top watchdong body must be independent, impartial, free and fair, and not be influenced by the political executive.<br /><br />Appearing for the NGO, Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), advocate Prashant Bhushan said that several factors relating to the palmolein import case were not placed before the then CVC when Thomas’ name came up for clearance. Claiming that Thomas’ bio-data did not contain all details, including his stint as Food and Civil Supplies secretary to the Kerala government, Bhushan referred to the pending chargesheet, sanction for his prosecution by the Kerala government, the case diary and the report of the committee on state public undertakings.<br /><br />To this Vahanvati pointed out that the CVC’s clearance to Thomas before his appointment as secretary to the government of India remained unchallenged. “Nobody ever challenged what the CVC said at that time. All these facts were placed before the him (the CVC),” he said in response to a question by the Bench why details of the palmolein import case were not placed before the CVC.<br /><br />The Centre’s topmost law officer argued that “it is well settled that the question of suitability of the candidate is squarely the domain of the appointing authority. The argument about suitability of the candidate cannot be raised in a judicial proceeding.”<br />But the Bench reacted sharply, saying that if there can be judicial scrutiny of amendments to the Constitution, how could it be that there cannot be judicial review of such appointments.<br /><br />Senior advocate K K Venugopal, who defended Thomas, submitted that his client was the victim of a clash between two political parties.</p>
<p>“Does it not, in normal course, be a stigma when a chargesheet is filed against an officer? Is the criterion of impeccable integrity applied when there is a stigma of chargesheet?” a Bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia asked in the context of Attorney General G E Vahanvati’s submission.<br /><br />Larger issue<br /><br />Raising the larger issue of malfeasance on the part of P J Thomas, whose appointment as CVC last year and the government’s explanations have not inspired confidence of the court, the Bench questioned the clearance given to him by his predecessor in 2007-08 when his name came up for appointment as secretary to the Union government and subsequent empanelment for the post of CVC. During the day-long hearing, the court said it would lay down guidelines for future appointment to the post of CVC, which in Thomas’ case was decided by a three-member high-powered committee. <br /><br />The court’s decision assumes importance in the context of Union Home Minister P Chidambaram’s admission Monday that the chargesheet against Thomas, filed in 1992 for his alleged involvement in a palmolein import case, which caused a loss of about Rs 20 crore when he was Food and Civil Supplies secretary to the Kerala government, was indeed discussed by the selection committee headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. <br />During the hearing, Vahanvati maintained that there need not be “unanimity” among members on the selection committee for the CVC’s appointment. The court asked Vahanvati whether Thomas’ service file, besides his bio-data, was made available to the selection panel.<br /><br />But on the chargesheet against Thomas, the Bench, also comprising Justices K S Panicker Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar, said: “(The) CVC cannot say that the court might have applied its mind (while hearing the case) and neither can the Commission say there is no merit in the case while giving clearance. The CVC cannot be the final authority (in all these matters).”<br /><br />When the court questioned whether impeccable integrity could be applied even there was a pending chargesheet, the attorney general replied by saying “this is a grey area”. When Vahanvati responded that there were no guideliness or rules for appointing a CVC, the court said: “For future appointments, we would lay down guidelines that there should be some procedure”.<br /><br />To drive home its point, the court said future appointments of CVCs must be in accordance with the Vineet Narain case judgement which makes it clear that the chief of the country’s top watchdong body must be independent, impartial, free and fair, and not be influenced by the political executive.<br /><br />Appearing for the NGO, Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), advocate Prashant Bhushan said that several factors relating to the palmolein import case were not placed before the then CVC when Thomas’ name came up for clearance. Claiming that Thomas’ bio-data did not contain all details, including his stint as Food and Civil Supplies secretary to the Kerala government, Bhushan referred to the pending chargesheet, sanction for his prosecution by the Kerala government, the case diary and the report of the committee on state public undertakings.<br /><br />To this Vahanvati pointed out that the CVC’s clearance to Thomas before his appointment as secretary to the government of India remained unchallenged. “Nobody ever challenged what the CVC said at that time. All these facts were placed before the him (the CVC),” he said in response to a question by the Bench why details of the palmolein import case were not placed before the CVC.<br /><br />The Centre’s topmost law officer argued that “it is well settled that the question of suitability of the candidate is squarely the domain of the appointing authority. The argument about suitability of the candidate cannot be raised in a judicial proceeding.”<br />But the Bench reacted sharply, saying that if there can be judicial scrutiny of amendments to the Constitution, how could it be that there cannot be judicial review of such appointments.<br /><br />Senior advocate K K Venugopal, who defended Thomas, submitted that his client was the victim of a clash between two political parties.</p>
